West Brits.

[Corcaigh32]

On phone so sorry for typos.

 

[Farukh]

Where de barstoolers at? Where de barstoolers at?!

Dere de barstoolers at!

 

[Killyoursons]

As I said I think he's the wrong choice but I can see one value in his candidacy.

I've said it before - when it comes to identity, nationhood, who we are and who we want to be and what our relationship should be with England or Europe - we've systematically avoided that discussion. Whether in the North or down here tribalism prevails. Protestant or Catholic, Unionists or Nationalists, FF or FG, united Ireland or rejoin commonwealth / union, pro-Europe or anti - we go with the media driven groupthink more often than not. We need to have that conversation urgently. Higgins is trying to foster it. What MacGuinness brings is the opportunity to evaluate our relationship with our Northern brethren of either persuasion and that in itself will be an important contribution even if he hasn't a chance of being elected. I expect Mitchell to go after him bald-headed and he will get a bump from that as the O'Reilly Rag, Red Tops and RTE all go on the murdering Provo route.

But maybe that's why they picked him. Maybe they picked him because SF have reached a glass ceiling electorally until they lance that troubles boil that the electorate down here can't get past, understandably in some ways.

I think MacGuinness using the term is no different to people calling him Provo or worse. It doesn't add anything positive to the debate but neither does bsrstooler or knuckledragger or Provo. We need to dispassionately assess our past on all sides with equal weight and respect. The pros and cons of armed struggle, role of state, military and loyalist paramilitary in opposition and the pain caused on all aides - that's a discussion that needs to be started and if his candidacy prompts that - fair enough.

You think? I see little else most weeks in the book reviews in the Irish Times Weekend - Irish history, Irish studies, Irish culture, what it means to be Irish, blah blah blah.

Personally, I'm looking forward to him being asked whether he actually accepts the RoI as a legitimate state, whether he rejects the IRA's claim to be the legitimate government of the island of Ireland, and when he had this change of mind.

 

[strict66]

As I said I think he's the wrong choice but I can see one value in his candidacy.

I've said it before - when it comes to identity, nationhood, who we are and who we want to be and what our relationship should be with England or Europe - we've systematically avoided that discussion. Whether in the North or down here tribalism prevails. Protestant or Catholic, Unionists or Nationalists, FF or FG, united Ireland or rejoin commonwealth / union, pro-Europe or anti - we go with the media driven groupthink more often than not. We need to have that conversation urgently. Higgins is trying to foster it. What MacGuinness brings is the opportunity to evaluate our relationship with our Northern brethren of either persuasion and that in itself will be an important contribution even if he hasn't a chance of being elected. I expect Mitchell to go after him bald-headed and he will get a bump from that as the O'Reilly Rag, Red Tops and RTE all go on the murdering Provo route.

But maybe that's why they picked him. Maybe they picked him because SF have reached a glass ceiling electorally until they lance that troubles boil that the electorate down here can't get past, understandably in some ways.

I think MacGuinness using the term is no different to people calling him Provo or worse. It doesn't add anything positive to the debate but neither does bsrstooler or knuckledragger or Provo. We need to dispassionately assess our past on all sides with equal weight and respect. The pros and cons of armed struggle, role of state, military and loyalist paramilitary in opposition and the pain caused on all aides - that's a discussion that needs to be started and if his candidacy prompts that - fair enough.

C32 with respects I think you completely miss the point. You see it's not the implications or meaning behind using a phrase like 'west brit' that has people irked , it is that he would use such phraseology at all is the cause for concern.

I know it is a subject near and dear to your heart , but for a man I know is also a fervent believer in democracy I'm sure you'll understand the importance of the fact that the majority of the electorate could not articulate enough or more vividly how they do not give a shit about N.Ireland. They don't want to know about the place now so more than ever.

Indeed even Spin Feins (I like that one) 'minor' success in the last GE (you swear they won) was not on the back of any nationalist agenda, apparently their core issue, but on a economic one. Which as it happens they clearly illustrated they know nothing about and have no experience of.

This is why McGuinness makes remarks like this. It's a hoodwink to bring the debate into an arena he is most comfortable in. On subject matters such as Republicanism, Nationalism, Irishness , The Troubles etc he is very much at home and on his terms. He is adept at dodging , justifying his stance etc here with plenty of experience. But there is more to politics than what I mentioned there. Of the many roles of a president one is to be an ambassador for trade and investment. What is his track record here? Perhaps if more questioning of this nature was directed at to be fair not only him but also Norris then I think people might snap out of it and go 'oh not another clueless fucker'.

In a nutshell the vast majority of the electorate don't give a shit about McGuiness or Sinn Feins agenda. They are worried about the bobs and fuck all else. Sad but true

 

[POL]

West Brits.

I understand the concept.

I've been thinking about it lately, and its becoming more and more common as a term of abuse, especially today with Martin McGuinness using it to describe elements of the media who oppose his candidacy.

How does one qualify as a West Brit?

If one found the armed struggle of the IRA in the 30 years up to the GFA abhorrent, does that make one a West Brit?

If one believed that the violence was unjustified, does that make one a West Brit?

If one believed solely in peaceful demonstration and the power of persuasion, but aspired to a united Ireland, does that make one a West Brit?

If one, such as the above, views oneself as a republican, in the real, unappropriated sense of the word, but vehemently opposed the slaughter in the North, can one still be branded a West Brit?

Or is it as simple as this: If one views the IRA as criminal and opposes the candidacy of Martin McGuinness for the position of Uachtaran na hEireann, is one then a West Brit because Martin McGuinness says so?

Was John Hume a West Brit?

Or Seamas Mallon?

Can I get some clarification?

on a scale of one to ten, ten being positively quivering, how rattled are you by Mortin McGuinness?

 

[Corcaigh32]

Wouldn't necessarily disagree with most of that except per my post I think IF that is ACTUALLY the case then, as I said, we need to realise that as a people and let it go.I don't think that it's as antipathetic as you paint, but if it is, then MMcG will actually shoot himself in the foot

That's part of the reason I think SF picked the wrong candidate as the anti-MMcG feeling might consolidate around Mitchell

 

[rebelicecreamman]

So we are playing stereotype today? More so than usual.

Barstooler, Knuckledragger - they're fine but West Brit can't be used at all.
Rebelice knows very well what west Brit refers to and carefully chose his selected definitions.

I think Martin MacGuinness is the wrong choice for a few reasons but I'd pick him every day of the week ahead of Gay Mitchell but then I'd even consider David Norris ahead of Mitchell and I think Norris should not try to get back in as his credibility on certain issues is destroyed.

BUT what ever we do - let's not have a balanced objective discussion - let's stay in stereotype central where one side gets to mainstream lord it over the other.

Believe it or not Corcaigh, this thread was not prompted by McGuiness's use of the term today. It is something I am always conscious of. I am interested in Irish peoples' perceptions of each other politically and culturally. Our identities are manifold, and we constantly assess and classify each other along cultural, economic and political lines. Maybe its the same in every country, but this is my country.

Take Irish sport, for example.

There is a rugby set, a GAA set, and soccer set. But these sets intersect massively and do so more and more all the time. Yet the perceived stereotypes are still very strong. The GAA is in my blood. In Croke Park I feel at home and amongst my own. Yet when I go to rugby or soccer matches I find myself looking for difference when in reality there is none. The stereotypes are strong but all are equally valid and Irish. We shouldn't have to remind ourselves of this but we do.

Similarly in Irish politics. It is as though there is a hierarchy of Irishness, with several parties perceiving themselves as possessing the true faith, a superiority complex and a monopoly on the essence of Irishness. This is where the terminology you mentioned comes in - knuckledragger, barstooler, West Brit.
I don't think I've ever applied any of those labels while debating here btw.

FF see themselves as more truly Irish than FG. SF believe that it is they who are true republicans. The dissidents believe it is only they who pursue the holy grail of Irish unity as demanded by the dead generations.

Is it not possible that they are all sick and have missed the point?

I didn't start this thread as an attack on SF or Martin McGuinness. Having said that, as someone whose memory of the TV news growing up is of daily tales of utterly futile savagery and barbarism on this island, I can not bring myself to vote for him as Uachtaran. For varying different reasons, none of the other political nominees appeal to me either.

 

[Michael P Splonk]

Lads can anyone explain the difference between morton and the lads from 1916?

 

[Stacky]

So people have to decide do they really want to elect a man who told an elderly woman that her son was safe to return to Derry (Frank Hegarty) and then had him shot dead.

He states that he left the I.R.A. in the early 1070's - what was he doing from that date onwards ? Afternoon telly ? College ? So why were M16 talking to Mortin if he was not in the I.R.A. after that date to secure a ceasefire ?

Mortin is a man of the past and we need people of the future not people who are called "West Brits" because they do not believe in using extreme violence.

 

[mire]

Lads can anyone explain the difference between morton and the lads from 1916?

there is a distinction.

those involved in 1916 would not have advocated bombing shopping centres, civilian targets [whether it be in pubs, pizza delivery staff, random drivers], bookee shops etc.

marty and the brave shinners hold the view that killing civilians was a justifiable technique to advance political aims.

marty and gerry will never, ever, be thought of in the same way that the 1916 volunteers were, despite their attempts to gain legitimacy by pretending they are just the same.

that is the difference.